Television's influence on teenage sexual behavior and responsibility

¶ … Television and Cultural Plagues in America

American society is both one of the most litigious and one of the most violent in the world. But violence is not the only cultural quagmire: Sexual promiscuity -- along with the itinerant sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies -- is another cultural minefield. And of course, racism, drug use and alcohol abuse are other major, seemingly unsolvable problems.

A common thread behind these social problems is the fact that social critics and activists blame television and its centrality to American culture for all. Television's pervasiveness especially among children is the concern. Today, often with both parents working and out of the house, latchkey kids come home from school and immediately turn on the television and start absorbing its disparate and often uncontrolled and only lightly censored messages.

Consequently, activists point their finger at television for corrupting the minds of our youth and steering them down a path of drug use, irresponsible sex, racism and, of course, most prominently, violence.

Researchers have shown several links between the content of television programs and these social plagues, but applying a balancing test, the correlations are relatively attenuated and the cost of our first amendment freedoms far outweigh any benefits of censoring television programs.

Televisions and Irresponsible Sex in America

A recent RAND study has shown a very disturbing link between television watching and children's less responsible sexual activity. RAND reports that the average American teenager watches three hours of television a day. Typical teen shows contain "heavy doses of sexual content, ranging from touching, kissing, jokes, and innuendo to conversations about sexual activity and portrayals of intercourse. Sex is often presented as a casual activity without risk or consequences. Conventional wisdom holds that the messages young viewers absorb from television promote sexual activity in this group. Yet, despite the prevalence of this view, there has been little empirical study to date of how watching sex on television influences teenagers' sexual behavior." (RAND, 1)

Two recent studies led by RAND Health behavioral scientist Rebecca Collins examine the force of TV sex on teenagers' sexual beliefs and activities. The results clearly put forth the view that watching shows with sexual content may influence teen sexual behavior, but also found that some viewing effects can be positive as well. (RAND, 1)

Of the key findings, Collins reported that teens who watch a lot of television with sexual content are more likely to initiate sexual intercourse during the forthcoming year. Also, television programming that discusses sexual activity affects teenagers just as much as programming that depicts and actually shows sexual activity. However, on the flip side, shows that discuss the risks of sexual activity actually slow irresponsible sexual acts on teenagers' parts.

These mixed findings are incredibly helpful in determining the impact of television on teenagers' sexual decisions. First, the fact that teens who watch a lot of television programming with sexual content are more likely to initiate sexual intercourse during the forthcoming year is important in its generality. The research does not distinguish between television programming with just spurious sexual content, or television programming with sexual content that actually discusses the risks of sexual activity. As a result, without controlling for the seemingly positive programming, the harm that sexual content causes in general is even more pronounced. Presumably, simply the appearance of sexual content in television programming results in more teenagers initiating sexual intercourse in the forthcoming year.

Of course, that is also one of the limitations of the research; it is not ideal to point to the lack of control in a research methodology to support a point. However, given that caveat, it is incredibly sobering that even purportedly positive appearances of sexual themes in television shows result in the greater initiation of sexual activity in America's teenage population.

And the fact that RAND researched the "initiation" of sexual intercourse also leaves open the possibility of sexual aggression; this, of course, in turn opens up the possibility of depictions of rape influencing teenagers to commit some form of the crime themselves. Or, perhaps it may raise rates of less egregious sexual aggression, or other forms of rape, such as date rape.

Then, moving onto the next prong of the RAND study, the discussion of sexual activity has the same result as the depiction of sexual activity. This is perhaps the most sobering revelation of all. After all, most television programs will censor actual depiction of sexual acts in favor of alluding to them and excessive sexual innuendo throughout the program.

For instance, in the film "When Harry Met Sally," very little in the way of sexual activity is depicted, but sex is constantly discussed, with, of course, the famous scene of Meg Ryan demonstrating faking an orgasm at a diner. Films like that are not censored for their sexual language, innuendo and conversation on television; rather, they are show in their entirety, without possibly some censoring of the profanity alone. According to the RAND study, this partial censorship accomplishes nothing as discussions of sexual activity are just as suggestive and therefore harmful to teenagers as are depictions of sexual activity.

This means, of course, that our policy measures are failing miserably, as their focus is completely askew. Research like this is not only helpful in determining the linkages between irresponsible sexual activity in teenagers and television programming, but also whether our actions based on assumptions are correct or incorrect in rectifying the problem.

Finally, the RAND study points out that there are positive benefits to discussions or depictions of sexual activity on television: "Shows that portray the risks of sex can help educate teens." (RAND, 1) This finding does not contradict the first finding that implies that even positive portrayals -- meaning, portrayals including the risks of sexual activity -- increase the chance that teenagers will initiate sexual intercourse. This finding shows that careful measures will be followed by those teenagers; teenagers seeing the risks of sexual activity on television may initiate sexual intercourse more often, but they may also use protection to insure against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

So, as a result, the final prong of the RAND study shows that there are positive benefits to portraying sexual activity on television as well, not just the negative repercussions of both depictions and discussions of sexual activity on the formative minds of teenagers.

A Culture of Guns and Violence in America

America is looked at uniquely in the world, especially among "first" and "second-world" nations, for its violent propensities. Familial and interpersonal violence aside, America is a land of serious sociological violence issues. We live in a land of legal assault weapons, almost daily gang-related violence in every city, carjackings, freeway murders and many more forms of violence.

Experts decry the violence as violence for no end. Indeed, we have a culture of violence here, perpetuated by violence in our media: television, movies and popular songs, primarily. Children, from a very early age, are raised to accept and even praise violence, as everywhere they turn, they are confronted with another glorification of violence.

The American Psychological Association asks, "Violence on Television: What do children learn? What can parents do?" (www.apa.org) The American Psychological Association examines in detail the data surrounding violence and the glorification of violence on television and the connection between the two.

The American Psychological Association has found three links: "Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. Children may be more fearful of the world around them. Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways towards others." (www.apa.net)

In fact, the APA continues by observing that children who watch a lot of television are less aroused by violent scenes than are those who only watch a little; in other words, they're less bothered by violence in general, and less likely to see anything at all wrong with it. In one example the APA cites, children who watched a violent program instead of a non-violent one were slower to intervene or call for help when, a little later, they saw younger children fighting or playing destructively.

There is another side to the research, a practical side. Topics Magazine asks, "Although many criticize violent movies, if there is a movie that does not contain sex or violence, who will go see that movie?" (www.topics-mag.com)

Indeed, that observation is a relevant one, because even if it is possible to prove the sociological link between violence in the media and violence in our everyday lives, there is a practical, business aspect to the question too. That article continues to acknowledge that "Children might imitate behavior they see in the movies." However, not all children imitate violence. In fact, the article shows that children actually abhor violence in the movies or television and learn from it that they should not emulate the characters they see or hear.

Mediascope researches violence in popular music. Its studies show that forty-eight percent of Americans say violence in popular music should be heavily regulated, and fifty-nine percent of Americans would like to restrict violence in music. (www.mediascope.org)

These studies are particularly relevant today, given the controversy surrounding hip-hop star Eminem's lyrics. Eminem's lyrics constantly involve topics such as parental murders, rapes and suicide, and children are huge fans of his music. Should his music be regulated if studies show that children actually do engage in violent acts because of the lyrics? Or is that a violation of Eminem's First Amendment rights?

I feel that sociological violence is, obviously, a dangerous trend. However, regulating music, movies and television implicates serious First Amendment challenges that truly are not the best way to achieve the end of a society with less pathological and sociological violence.

The best way to control violence is not to restrict what children can and cannot see and hear. Rather, restrict access to violent weapons. If a child sees an Eminem video with a gun or a movie with a serial killer, it is highly unlikely, given Topics Magazine's research, that he or she would emulate the violence. However, given the American Psychological Association's research, we should still not dismiss the effects of the media on sociological violence.

So, we must control access to weapons, so in the rare cases that children do grow up wanting to emulate the violence they observed as children, they are simply unable to do so.

This has the added benefit of not glorifying violence through restriction. As we all know, we want what we cannot have, and if violence is restricted on the media to children, they will grow up into adults with a more glorified sense of what violence entails. Let us bypass this problem, protect our first amendment rights and slow sociological violence in one fell swoop by simply limiting access weapons.